Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 120 | 58 | 62 |
2nd | 86 | 52 | 34 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 120 | 38.15 ± 17.06 (18 - 148) | 39.90 ± 19.46 (18 - 148) | 36.51 ± 14.44 (20 - 70) | 0.279 |
gender | 120 | 0.298 | |||
female | 86 (72%) | 39 (67%) | 47 (76%) | ||
male | 34 (28%) | 19 (33%) | 15 (24%) | ||
occupation | 120 | 0.659 | |||
civil | 6 (5.0%) | 2 (3.4%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
clerk | 23 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 14 (23%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (6.7%) | 3 (5.2%) | 5 (8.1%) | ||
manager | 16 (13%) | 9 (16%) | 7 (11%) | ||
other | 11 (9.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 7 (11%) | ||
professional | 15 (12%) | 11 (19%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (3.3%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
service | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
student | 30 (25%) | 15 (26%) | 15 (24%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
working_status | 120 | 76 (63%) | 37 (64%) | 39 (63%) | 0.919 |
marital | 120 | 0.477 | |||
divorced | 4 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
widowed | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 120 | 0.689 | |||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
other | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
education | 120 | 0.074 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 14 (12%) | 3 (5.2%) | 11 (18%) | ||
post-secondary | 20 (17%) | 12 (21%) | 8 (13%) | ||
university | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | ||
university_edu | 120 | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | 0.561 |
family_income | 120 | 0.541 | |||
0_10000 | 13 (11%) | 5 (8.6%) | 8 (13%) | ||
10001_20000 | 22 (18%) | 8 (14%) | 14 (23%) | ||
20001_30000 | 23 (19%) | 11 (19%) | 12 (19%) | ||
30001_40000 | 20 (17%) | 10 (17%) | 10 (16%) | ||
40000_above | 42 (35%) | 24 (41%) | 18 (29%) | ||
high_income | 120 | 62 (52%) | 34 (59%) | 28 (45%) | 0.140 |
religion | 120 | 0.649 | |||
buddhism | 5 (4.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
catholic | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
christianity | 47 (39%) | 23 (40%) | 24 (39%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
religion_r | 120 | 0.915 | |||
christianity | 52 (43%) | 25 (43%) | 27 (44%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 7 (5.8%) | 4 (6.9%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
source | 120 | 0.067 | |||
bokss | 51 (42%) | 20 (34%) | 31 (50%) | ||
17 (14%) | 13 (22%) | 4 (6.5%) | |||
9 (7.5%) | 6 (10%) | 3 (4.8%) | |||
other | 19 (16%) | 9 (16%) | 10 (16%) | ||
refresh | 24 (20%) | 10 (17%) | 14 (23%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 120 | 19.20 ± 2.18 (15 - 25) | 19.02 ± 2.03 (15 - 24) | 19.37 ± 2.31 (15 - 25) | 0.377 |
setv | 120 | 11.14 ± 1.64 (7 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.56 (8 - 15) | 11.24 ± 1.71 (7 - 15) | 0.490 |
maks | 120 | 44.92 ± 3.63 (36 - 57) | 44.67 ± 3.59 (36 - 52) | 45.16 ± 3.68 (38 - 57) | 0.463 |
ibs | 120 | 15.44 ± 2.45 (5 - 20) | 15.41 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 15.47 ± 2.72 (5 - 20) | 0.904 |
ers_e | 120 | 12.22 ± 1.46 (8 - 15) | 12.14 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.45 (9 - 15) | 0.569 |
ers_r | 120 | 11.11 ± 1.58 (7 - 15) | 11.02 ± 1.57 (7 - 14) | 11.19 ± 1.59 (8 - 15) | 0.543 |
pss_pa | 120 | 44.62 ± 4.47 (30 - 54) | 44.47 ± 4.26 (30 - 54) | 44.76 ± 4.68 (31 - 54) | 0.722 |
pss_ps | 120 | 26.64 ± 8.34 (12 - 56) | 26.67 ± 7.63 (13 - 42) | 26.61 ± 9.02 (12 - 56) | 0.969 |
pss | 120 | 45.02 ± 11.85 (21 - 77) | 45.21 ± 11.26 (22 - 72) | 44.85 ± 12.47 (21 - 77) | 0.872 |
rki_responsible | 120 | 21.01 ± 4.13 (7 - 32) | 20.95 ± 4.11 (13 - 29) | 21.06 ± 4.18 (7 - 32) | 0.878 |
rki_nonlinear | 120 | 13.30 ± 2.75 (6 - 22) | 13.12 ± 2.54 (6 - 20) | 13.47 ± 2.94 (7 - 22) | 0.492 |
rki_peer | 120 | 20.58 ± 2.15 (16 - 25) | 20.47 ± 2.07 (16 - 25) | 20.68 ± 2.23 (16 - 25) | 0.591 |
rki_expect | 120 | 4.75 ± 1.09 (2 - 8) | 4.60 ± 1.11 (2 - 8) | 4.89 ± 1.07 (2 - 7) | 0.157 |
rki | 120 | 59.63 ± 6.10 (44 - 81) | 59.14 ± 5.86 (45 - 76) | 60.10 ± 6.33 (44 - 81) | 0.392 |
raq_possible | 120 | 15.66 ± 1.79 (12 - 20) | 15.74 ± 1.89 (12 - 20) | 15.58 ± 1.71 (12 - 20) | 0.626 |
raq_difficulty | 120 | 12.42 ± 1.39 (9 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.38 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.373 |
raq | 120 | 28.08 ± 2.90 (21 - 35) | 28.28 ± 2.97 (21 - 35) | 27.89 ± 2.85 (21 - 35) | 0.466 |
who | 120 | 14.63 ± 4.46 (3 - 25) | 14.62 ± 4.24 (6 - 25) | 14.65 ± 4.68 (3 - 25) | 0.976 |
phq | 120 | 3.76 ± 3.81 (0 - 18) | 3.66 ± 3.73 (0 - 17) | 3.85 ± 3.91 (0 - 18) | 0.776 |
gad | 120 | 3.23 ± 3.57 (0 - 21) | 3.38 ± 4.11 (0 - 21) | 3.08 ± 3.00 (0 - 12) | 0.649 |
nb_pcs | 120 | 51.64 ± 7.15 (25 - 63) | 51.88 ± 7.17 (25 - 63) | 51.42 ± 7.18 (27 - 62) | 0.729 |
nb_mcs | 120 | 50.24 ± 8.59 (22 - 70) | 50.20 ± 8.89 (22 - 68) | 50.28 ± 8.37 (35 - 70) | 0.960 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.274 | 18.5, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.354 | 0.381 | -0.393, 1.10 | 0.355 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.153 | 0.305 | -0.750, 0.445 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.319 | 0.470 | -0.602, 1.24 | 0.498 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.216 | 10.6, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.207 | 0.300 | -0.381, 0.796 | 0.491 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.324 | 0.215 | -0.098, 0.745 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.155 | 0.333 | -0.808, 0.498 | 0.642 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.7 | 0.485 | 43.7, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.489 | 0.674 | -0.833, 1.81 | 0.470 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.209 | 0.400 | -0.992, 0.575 | 0.603 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 0.625 | -0.949, 1.50 | 0.660 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.310 | 14.8, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.054 | 0.432 | -0.792, 0.900 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.167 | 0.244 | -0.311, 0.646 | 0.495 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.438 | 0.382 | -0.311, 1.19 | 0.255 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.187 | 11.8, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.152 | 0.260 | -0.358, 0.663 | 0.559 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.290 | 0.174 | -0.632, 0.052 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.415 | 0.271 | -0.117, 0.947 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.193 | 10.6, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.269 | -0.350, 0.703 | 0.513 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.097 | 0.231 | -0.356, 0.551 | 0.675 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.195 | 0.354 | -0.500, 0.890 | 0.583 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.5 | 0.581 | 43.3, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.293 | 0.809 | -1.29, 1.88 | 0.718 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.991 | 0.611 | -2.19, 0.206 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.501 | 0.944 | -1.35, 2.35 | 0.597 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.060 | 24.6, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.060 | 1.474 | -2.95, 2.83 | 0.968 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.951 | 0.920 | -0.851, 2.75 | 0.304 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 1.435 | -4.47, 1.16 | 0.253 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.2 | 1.506 | 42.3, 48.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.352 | 2.095 | -4.46, 3.75 | 0.867 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.98 | 1.305 | -0.580, 4.53 | 0.134 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.05 | 2.036 | -6.04, 1.94 | 0.317 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.9 | 0.537 | 19.9, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.116 | 0.746 | -1.35, 1.58 | 0.876 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.073 | 0.499 | -0.905, 1.05 | 0.883 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.036 | 0.776 | -1.56, 1.49 | 0.963 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.373 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.347 | 0.518 | -0.669, 1.36 | 0.504 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.270 | 0.355 | -0.965, 0.425 | 0.448 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.546 | 0.551 | -0.534, 1.63 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.285 | 19.9, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.212 | 0.396 | -0.565, 0.989 | 0.594 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.005 | 0.280 | -0.544, 0.553 | 0.987 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.142 | 0.434 | -0.709, 0.994 | 0.744 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.60 | 0.136 | 4.34, 4.87 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 0.189 | -0.087, 0.654 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.138 | 0.154 | -0.165, 0.441 | 0.374 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.089 | 0.238 | -0.377, 0.554 | 0.710 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.1 | 0.793 | 57.6, 60.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.959 | 1.103 | -1.20, 3.12 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.051 | 0.743 | -1.51, 1.40 | 0.946 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.765 | 1.155 | -1.50, 3.03 | 0.510 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.230 | 15.3, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 0.320 | -0.788, 0.466 | 0.616 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.378 | 0.248 | -0.864, 0.108 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.837 | 0.383 | 0.086, 1.59 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.178 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.228 | 0.247 | -0.712, 0.256 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.128 | 0.173 | -0.466, 0.210 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.307 | 0.268 | -0.218, 0.832 | 0.255 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 0.373 | 27.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.389 | 0.519 | -1.41, 0.628 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.481 | 0.356 | -1.18, 0.218 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.12 | 0.554 | 0.038, 2.21 | 0.045 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.586 | 13.5, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.024 | 0.815 | -1.57, 1.62 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.187 | 0.470 | -1.11, 0.735 | 0.692 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.838 | 0.736 | -0.605, 2.28 | 0.258 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.66 | 0.491 | 2.69, 4.62 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.200 | 0.683 | -1.14, 1.54 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.118 | 0.324 | -0.516, 0.753 | 0.716 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.140 | 0.509 | -1.14, 0.858 | 0.784 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.456 | 2.49, 4.27 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.299 | 0.634 | -1.54, 0.944 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.084 | 0.361 | -0.791, 0.623 | 0.817 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.090 | 0.565 | -1.02, 1.20 | 0.873 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 0.909 | 50.1, 53.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.455 | 1.264 | -2.93, 2.02 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.830 | 0.742 | -2.28, 0.624 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.52 | 1.161 | -0.759, 3.79 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.2 | 1.106 | 48.0, 52.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.080 | 1.539 | -2.94, 3.10 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.994 | 1.023 | -1.01, 3.00 | 0.333 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.510 | 1.592 | -3.63, 2.61 | 0.749 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.02 (95% CI [18.48, 19.55], t(200) = 69.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.10], t(200) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.45], t(200) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.24], t(200) = 0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.61, 11.46], t(200) = 51.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.80], t(200) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.74], t(200) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.50], t(200) = -0.47, p = 0.641; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.67 (95% CI [43.72, 45.62], t(200) = 92.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.81], t(200) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.58], t(200) = -0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.50], t(200) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.81, 16.02], t(200) = 49.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.90], t(200) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.65], t(200) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.19], t(200) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.77, 12.50], t(200) = 64.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.66], t(200) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05], t(200) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.95], t(200) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.02 (95% CI [10.64, 11.40], t(200) = 57.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.70], t(200) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.55], t(200) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.89], t(200) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.47 (95% CI [43.33, 45.60], t(200) = 76.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.88], t(200) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.19, 0.21], t(200) = -1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.35], t(200) = 0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.67 (95% CI [24.60, 28.75], t(200) = 25.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.83], t(200) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.75], t(200) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.16], t(200) = -1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.21 (95% CI [42.26, 48.16], t(200) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-4.46, 3.75], t(200) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.98, 95% CI [-0.58, 4.53], t(200) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.05, 95% CI [-6.04, 1.94], t(200) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.86e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.95 (95% CI [19.90, 22.00], t(200) = 39.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.58], t(200) = 0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.05], t(200) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.49], t(200) = -0.05, p = 0.963; Std. beta = -9.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.39, 13.85], t(200) = 35.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.36], t(200) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.42], t(200) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.63], t(200) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [19.91, 21.02], t(200) = 71.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.99], t(200) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.55], t(200) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 2.12e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.99], t(200) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.60 (95% CI [4.34, 4.87], t(200) = 33.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.65], t(200) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44], t(200) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.55], t(200) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.14 (95% CI [57.58, 60.69], t(200) = 74.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.12], t(200) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.40], t(200) = -0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = -8.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.03], t(200) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.74 (95% CI [15.29, 16.19], t(200) = 68.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.47], t(200) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.11], t(200) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.09, 1.59], t(200) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.05, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [12.19, 12.88], t(200) = 70.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.26], t(200) = -0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.21], t(200) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.83], t(200) = 1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [27.54, 29.01], t(200) = 75.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.63], t(200) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.22], t(200) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [0.04, 2.21], t(200) = 2.03, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [0.01, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.62 (95% CI [13.47, 15.77], t(200) = 24.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.62], t(200) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 5.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.74], t(200) = -0.40, p = 0.691; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.28], t(200) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.69e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.66 (95% CI [2.69, 4.62], t(200) = 7.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.54], t(200) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.75], t(200) = 0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.86], t(200) = -0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.49, 4.27], t(200) = 7.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.94], t(200) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.62], t(200) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.20], t(200) = 0.16, p = 0.873; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.88 (95% CI [50.10, 53.66], t(200) = 57.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.93, 2.02], t(200) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.62], t(200) = -1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.76, 3.79], t(200) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.20 (95% CI [48.04, 52.37], t(200) = 45.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.94, 3.10], t(200) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 9.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.00], t(200) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.61], t(200) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 874.767 | 884.751 | -434.384 | 868.767 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 878.282 | 898.249 | -433.141 | 866.282 | 2.486 | 3 | 0.478 |
setv | null | 3 | 764.006 | 773.990 | -379.003 | 758.006 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 767.121 | 787.089 | -377.561 | 755.121 | 2.885 | 3 | 0.410 |
maks | null | 3 | 1,070.308 | 1,080.291 | -532.154 | 1,064.308 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 1,075.090 | 1,095.057 | -531.545 | 1,063.090 | 1.218 | 3 | 0.749 |
ibs | null | 3 | 883.341 | 893.325 | -438.671 | 877.341 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 884.490 | 904.457 | -436.245 | 872.490 | 4.852 | 3 | 0.183 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 698.649 | 708.633 | -346.325 | 692.649 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 699.682 | 719.649 | -343.841 | 687.682 | 4.967 | 3 | 0.174 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 737.815 | 747.799 | -365.907 | 731.815 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 741.476 | 761.443 | -364.738 | 729.476 | 2.339 | 3 | 0.505 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 1,179.390 | 1,189.373 | -586.695 | 1,173.390 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 1,181.621 | 1,201.588 | -584.810 | 1,169.621 | 3.769 | 3 | 0.288 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,400.165 | 1,410.148 | -697.082 | 1,394.165 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,404.403 | 1,424.370 | -696.201 | 1,392.403 | 1.762 | 3 | 0.623 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,545.676 | 1,555.659 | -769.838 | 1,539.676 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,548.929 | 1,568.897 | -768.465 | 1,536.929 | 2.746 | 3 | 0.432 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 1,127.455 | 1,137.439 | -560.728 | 1,121.455 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 1,133.411 | 1,153.378 | -560.705 | 1,121.411 | 0.044 | 3 | 0.998 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 982.640 | 992.624 | -488.320 | 976.640 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 986.241 | 1,006.208 | -487.120 | 974.241 | 2.399 | 3 | 0.494 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 874.331 | 884.315 | -434.166 | 868.331 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 879.625 | 899.592 | -433.812 | 867.625 | 0.707 | 3 | 0.872 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 590.825 | 600.809 | -292.413 | 584.825 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 591.301 | 611.268 | -289.650 | 579.301 | 5.524 | 3 | 0.137 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,291.403 | 1,301.387 | -642.702 | 1,285.403 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 1,295.327 | 1,315.294 | -641.663 | 1,283.327 | 2.076 | 3 | 0.557 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 801.852 | 811.836 | -397.926 | 795.852 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 802.725 | 822.692 | -395.362 | 790.725 | 5.127 | 3 | 0.163 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 679.083 | 689.067 | -336.542 | 673.083 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 683.490 | 703.458 | -335.745 | 671.490 | 1.593 | 3 | 0.661 |
raq | null | 3 | 985.346 | 995.330 | -489.673 | 979.346 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 987.213 | 1,007.180 | -487.606 | 975.213 | 4.133 | 3 | 0.247 |
who | null | 3 | 1,144.798 | 1,154.782 | -569.399 | 1,138.798 | |||
who | random | 6 | 1,149.140 | 1,169.108 | -568.570 | 1,137.140 | 1.658 | 3 | 0.646 |
phq | null | 3 | 1,040.877 | 1,050.860 | -517.438 | 1,034.877 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 1,046.691 | 1,066.659 | -517.346 | 1,034.691 | 0.185 | 3 | 0.980 |
gad | null | 3 | 1,037.968 | 1,047.952 | -515.984 | 1,031.968 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 1,043.723 | 1,063.690 | -515.862 | 1,031.723 | 0.245 | 3 | 0.970 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,328.335 | 1,338.319 | -661.168 | 1,322.335 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,332.466 | 1,352.433 | -660.233 | 1,320.466 | 1.869 | 3 | 0.600 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,425.882 | 1,435.866 | -709.941 | 1,419.882 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,430.736 | 1,450.704 | -709.368 | 1,418.736 | 1.146 | 3 | 0.766 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 58 | 19.02 ± 2.09 | 62 | 19.37 ± 2.09 | 0.355 | -0.224 | ||
sets | 2nd | 52 | 18.86 ± 2.07 | 0.097 | 34 | 19.54 ± 2.01 | -0.105 | 0.135 | -0.426 |
setv | 1st | 58 | 11.03 ± 1.64 | 62 | 11.24 ± 1.64 | 0.491 | -0.187 | ||
setv | 2nd | 52 | 11.36 ± 1.62 | -0.292 | 34 | 11.41 ± 1.53 | -0.152 | 0.881 | -0.047 |
maks | 1st | 58 | 44.67 ± 3.69 | 62 | 45.16 ± 3.69 | 0.470 | -0.238 | ||
maks | 2nd | 52 | 44.46 ± 3.60 | 0.102 | 34 | 45.23 ± 3.28 | -0.033 | 0.310 | -0.372 |
ibs | 1st | 58 | 15.41 ± 2.36 | 62 | 15.47 ± 2.36 | 0.901 | -0.043 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 52 | 15.58 ± 2.30 | -0.133 | 34 | 16.07 ± 2.07 | -0.483 | 0.304 | -0.393 |
ers_e | 1st | 58 | 12.14 ± 1.42 | 62 | 12.29 ± 1.42 | 0.559 | -0.170 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 52 | 11.85 ± 1.40 | 0.322 | 34 | 12.42 ± 1.31 | -0.139 | 0.057 | -0.631 |
ers_r | 1st | 58 | 11.02 ± 1.47 | 62 | 11.19 ± 1.47 | 0.513 | -0.147 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 52 | 11.11 ± 1.46 | -0.081 | 34 | 11.49 ± 1.44 | -0.244 | 0.247 | -0.309 |
pss_pa | 1st | 58 | 44.47 ± 4.43 | 62 | 44.76 ± 4.43 | 0.718 | -0.093 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 52 | 43.47 ± 4.37 | 0.314 | 34 | 44.27 ± 4.19 | 0.155 | 0.400 | -0.251 |
pss_ps | 1st | 58 | 26.67 ± 8.07 | 62 | 26.61 ± 8.07 | 0.968 | 0.013 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 52 | 27.62 ± 7.89 | -0.201 | 34 | 25.91 ± 7.26 | 0.148 | 0.303 | 0.362 |
pss | 1st | 58 | 45.21 ± 11.47 | 62 | 44.85 ± 11.47 | 0.867 | 0.052 | ||
pss | 2nd | 52 | 47.18 ± 11.21 | -0.294 | 34 | 44.78 ± 10.31 | 0.011 | 0.309 | 0.358 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 58 | 20.95 ± 4.09 | 62 | 21.06 ± 4.09 | 0.876 | -0.045 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 52 | 21.02 ± 4.01 | -0.029 | 34 | 21.10 ± 3.74 | -0.014 | 0.925 | -0.031 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 58 | 13.12 ± 2.84 | 62 | 13.47 ± 2.84 | 0.504 | -0.190 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 52 | 12.85 ± 2.79 | 0.148 | 34 | 13.74 ± 2.62 | -0.151 | 0.133 | -0.489 |
rki_peer | 1st | 58 | 20.47 ± 2.17 | 62 | 20.68 ± 2.17 | 0.594 | -0.147 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 52 | 20.47 ± 2.14 | -0.003 | 34 | 20.82 ± 2.02 | -0.102 | 0.437 | -0.245 |
rki_expect | 1st | 58 | 4.60 ± 1.03 | 62 | 4.89 ± 1.03 | 0.135 | -0.354 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 52 | 4.74 ± 1.03 | -0.172 | 34 | 5.11 ± 1.00 | -0.283 | 0.096 | -0.465 |
rki | 1st | 58 | 59.14 ± 6.04 | 62 | 60.10 ± 6.04 | 0.386 | -0.251 | ||
rki | 2nd | 52 | 59.09 ± 5.93 | 0.013 | 34 | 60.81 ± 5.54 | -0.187 | 0.172 | -0.451 |
raq_possible | 1st | 58 | 15.74 ± 1.75 | 62 | 15.58 ± 1.75 | 0.616 | 0.125 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 52 | 15.36 ± 1.73 | 0.295 | 34 | 16.04 ± 1.67 | -0.358 | 0.072 | -0.527 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 58 | 12.53 ± 1.35 | 62 | 12.31 ± 1.35 | 0.357 | 0.256 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 52 | 12.41 ± 1.33 | 0.144 | 34 | 12.49 ± 1.25 | -0.201 | 0.781 | -0.088 |
raq | 1st | 58 | 28.28 ± 2.84 | 62 | 27.89 ± 2.84 | 0.455 | 0.212 | ||
raq | 2nd | 52 | 27.80 ± 2.79 | 0.262 | 34 | 28.53 ± 2.62 | -0.350 | 0.217 | -0.400 |
who | 1st | 58 | 14.62 ± 4.46 | 62 | 14.65 ± 4.46 | 0.976 | -0.010 | ||
who | 2nd | 52 | 14.43 ± 4.34 | 0.077 | 34 | 15.30 ± 3.93 | -0.269 | 0.341 | -0.357 |
phq | 1st | 58 | 3.66 ± 3.74 | 62 | 3.85 ± 3.74 | 0.770 | -0.120 | ||
phq | 2nd | 52 | 3.77 ± 3.61 | -0.071 | 34 | 3.83 ± 3.15 | 0.013 | 0.936 | -0.036 |
gad | 1st | 58 | 3.38 ± 3.47 | 62 | 3.08 ± 3.47 | 0.638 | 0.161 | ||
gad | 2nd | 52 | 3.30 ± 3.38 | 0.045 | 34 | 3.09 ± 3.05 | -0.004 | 0.767 | 0.112 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 58 | 51.88 ± 6.92 | 62 | 51.42 ± 6.92 | 0.719 | 0.119 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 52 | 51.05 ± 6.75 | 0.218 | 34 | 52.11 ± 6.13 | -0.180 | 0.452 | -0.278 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 58 | 50.20 ± 8.42 | 62 | 50.28 ± 8.42 | 0.959 | -0.015 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 52 | 51.20 ± 8.27 | -0.189 | 34 | 50.77 ± 7.71 | -0.092 | 0.806 | 0.082 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(176.02) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.11)
2st
t(198.50) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.56)
setv
1st
t(163.46) = 0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.80)
2st
t(194.11) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.73)
maks
1st
t(147.81) = 0.72, p = 0.470, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.82)
2st
t(182.82) = 1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.25)
ibs
1st
t(144.76) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.91)
2st
t(179.40) = 1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.43)
ers_e
1st
t(157.28) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.67)
2st
t(190.68) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.15)
ers_r
1st
t(185.16) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.71)
2st
t(200.31) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.00)
pss_pa
1st
t(169.27) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.89)
2st
t(196.50) = 0.84, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.65)
pss_ps
1st
t(151.43) = -0.04, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.97 to 2.85)
2st
t(186.26) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-4.98 to 1.56)
pss
1st
t(151.31) = -0.17, p = 0.867, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-4.49 to 3.79)
2st
t(186.16) = -1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-7.04 to 2.24)
rki_responsible
1st
t(157.07) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.59)
2st
t(190.54) = 0.09, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.76)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(159.14) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.37)
2st
t(191.83) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.06)
rki_peer
1st
t(162.21) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.99)
2st
t(193.50) = 0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.25)
rki_expect
1st
t(178.70) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.66)
2st
t(199.12) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.81)
rki
1st
t(157.67) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.14)
2st
t(190.93) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.20)
raq_possible
1st
t(172.29) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.47)
2st
t(197.48) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.41)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(161.17) = -0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.26)
2st
t(192.96) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.64)
raq
1st
t(159.51) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.64)
2st
t(192.04) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.90)
who
1st
t(146.10) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.63)
2st
t(180.96) = 0.95, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.65)
phq
1st
t(136.16) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.55)
2st
t(166.55) = 0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.51)
gad
1st
t(145.19) = -0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.95)
2st
t(179.91) = -0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.18)
nb_pcs
1st
t(147.15) = -0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.04)
2st
t(182.12) = 0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.84)
nb_mcs
1st
t(156.55) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.96 to 3.12)
2st
t(190.19) = -0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.88 to 3.02)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(108.43) = 0.46, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.88)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(103.12) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.67)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(96.71) = 0.14, p = 0.889, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.02)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(95.46) = 2.05, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.19)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(100.58) = 0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.54)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(112.62) = 1.09, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.83)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(105.54) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.94)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(98.19) = -0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.89 to 1.49)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(98.14) = -0.05, p = 0.964, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.18 to 3.04)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(100.50) = 0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.22)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(101.35) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.12)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(102.61) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.81)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(109.62) = 1.25, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.59)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(100.74) = 0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.47)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(106.82) = 1.57, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.04)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(102.18) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.59)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(101.50) = 1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.49)
who
1st vs 2st
t(96.01) = 1.15, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.78)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(91.88) = -0.06, p = 0.956, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.76)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(95.63) = 0.01, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.87)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(96.44) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.46)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(100.28) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.91)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(90.43) = -0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.45)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(88.85) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.75)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(87.10) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.59)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(86.78) = 0.69, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.65)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(88.14) = -1.66, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.06)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(91.79) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.56)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(89.55) = -1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.22)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(87.49) = 1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.78)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(87.48) = 1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.62 to 4.57)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(88.11) = 0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.07)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(88.35) = -0.76, p = 0.449, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.44)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(88.70) = 0.02, p = 0.987, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.56)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(90.80) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.45)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(88.18) = -0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.43)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(89.94) = -1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.12)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(88.58) = -0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.22)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(88.39) = -1.35, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.23)
who
1st vs 2st
t(86.92) = -0.40, p = 0.692, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.75)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(85.87) = 0.37, p = 0.716, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.76)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(86.82) = -0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.63)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(87.03) = -1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.31 to 0.65)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(88.06) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.03)